There are many, many common names for this species, and the name is in use well outside of iNaturalist (variations include bald-faced aerial yellowjacket, bald-faced yellowjacket, bald-faced yellow jacket, etc.). Very frankly, insect common names, particularly those of wasps, generally are required to be taxonomically accurate, unlike other groups. Numerous specialists with this group adamantly reject any application of "hornet" to this species as these particular names actually are taxonomically defined (and the misapplied and prominent common name, which really is tied to early identification issues, has resulted in a ton of misinformation). I'll also loop in @caseyborowskijr, but it's worth noting that these common names had been specifically curated to that point by several vespid specialists, in light of all in-use common names and with a year of stability, and that entering "bald-faced hornet" will still arrive at the species. Changes really should be in light of previous discussions and shouldn't ignore a fairly large discussion among experts on this family.

@jonathan142 I think this is a more general question worthy of broader input. I've made a post here on the forum: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/default-common-names-taxonomy-and-common-use/5952, and encourage you to contribute.

I don't know who changed it to "hornet" again, but can we not have an "edit war" and just leave it alone while this is being discussed?

Regarding common names in social wasps, there is acceptance among wasp researchers that only wasps in the genera Vespa and Provespa are ‘hornets’, while wasps in Vespula and Dolichovespula are ’yellowjackets’. I’m a firm believer in accurate common names. As a wasp researcher for over forty years, I’m sick and tired of having to explain to people I meet that the bald-faced ‘hornet’ isn’t a hornet at all, but a true yellowjacket. With this wonderful format of iNaturalist, we have the opportunity to introduce to both experienced and novice naturalists a much more accurate name for this amazing species.

Case in point where a common name was changed to a more accurate and meaningful one. Bob Jacobson is the author of the species Vespula flavopilosa. This yellowjacket did not have a common name until Roger Akre, in Akre et al. (1981) proposed ‘Hybrid Yellowjacket’ for this species, because at the time V. flavopilosa was thought to be a hybrid species originally ‘created’ by interbreeding between V. maculifrons and V. vulgaris. Mr. Jacobson hated this name, and created the new common name of Downy Yellowjacket for Vespula flavopilosa. Downy Yellowjacket ( in reference to the dense yellow pilosity on the sides of the thorax and gaster) was originally proposed on Bugguide.net, and is the widely accepted common name for this species.

If agreement cannot be reached for Dolichovespula maculata, perhaps NO common name should be used.

Thanks for the replies,

A few points:

"Hornet" has two different definitions. It can be used to mean the same thing as "true hornet", i.e. a single monophyletic group. But the colloquial definition instead refers to various species of large wasps, it is not a taxonomic concept. You can certainly advocate that they should use a different definition, but people are absolutely not wrong to be calling it a hornet, except maybe in some contexts where a more rigorous scientific definition is expected. "Hornet" is this sense is a polyphyletic group no different than "Robin", "Sparrow", "Mouse", "Toad", "Daisy", or "Cricket". But even calling these polyphyletic isn't really right, these aren't inherently taxonomic definitions at all.
To be clear, I have zero problem with anyone advocating that these names should be used in a more rigiorous taxonomic sense, or with anyone personally using whatever name they want. I do have a problem with the assertion that other people are wrong, and with trying to impose names on other people.
Vespid specialists don't get to decide what "hornet" means any more than carpenters get to decide what "chair" means or publishers get to decide what "book" means. The definitions used among specialists can certainly be influential on others, but these are English words that don't have any external meaning beyond how people actually use them.

I don't really understand how you can say that these other names are in common use. Maybe among the small group of specialists. But this is a species well-known to a huge proportion of the amateur naturalists in North America, and to lots of people that wouldn't even consider themselves naturalists. If they were using these other names, they would be showing up online, in publications, and so on. But those three names together only have 9 photos on Flickr, compared to 1400 for Bald-faced Hornet. As far as I can tell this link is the only place on BugGuide where anyone ever uses any of the common names you listed to refer to this species: https://bugguide.net/node/view/1632691/bgimage. And all the other things I listed above. I don't deny that some people are using it, but it's such a tiny minority as to be irrelevant. I'm not even sure these names are actually being used among most entomologists. Here's four journal articles from the last few years that use "bald-faced hornet":
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/anie.201804666
https://scholar.valpo.edu/tgle/vol35/iss1/13/
http://summit.sfu.ca/item/15595
https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=336285
There are zero hits for any of the other names in Google Scholar.

This species is I think rather different in this respect than most other wasps. The example of "Hybrid Yellowjacket" above is a good one. In general, for a species like that most people interested in the species are going to be intermediate to expert, and keenly interested. They aren't going to be confused by name changes. And it's a new name that hasn't had time to crystallize. It is actually reasonable to expect that a small group of keenly interested people with good reasoning can actually change what name people use, and it sounds like that is what happened.
Bald-faced Hornet is a different case. This is a species, with that common name, published in any insect field guide and lots of other books, listed in various databases, tons of information out there related to pest control and similar, in the scientific literature, etc.. I don't think it's possible that this name will actually change. It would be like ornithologists trying to change the name of Yellow Warbler, or botanists trying to change Silver Maple. It ain't gonna happen, no matter how good your arguments are. The American Birding Association changed the name of Oldsquaw to Long-tailed Duck many years ago (for good reason), but that's still what I think most hunters call it. This is despite that other name already being in wide use in Europe, and that the ABA has a lot more "official legitimacy" and reach than vespid specialists.

@jonathan142 Cross-posted with your last post.

If other sources such as Bugguide and others were using the new name, I would feel better about it to some degree. I would still say that we should default to common usage at least until the new name is within an order of magnitude of usage compared to the existing name. I'm a lot more interested in "organic" usage (e.g. name use in loosely related articles, personal blogs, books aimed at beginners). The idea that any single person or small group of people should get to decide what common name is "right" is what I really don't like. That just not how human language works - and that's why scientific nomenclature was invented. I would still advocate against the changes, and indeed against almost any common name changes whatsoever when an existing name is well established, beyond (sometimes) those aiming to bring global consistency to a species that has different names in different areas.

Frankly, "Bald-faced Aerial Yellowjacket" is a terrible common name. It has way too many syllables, is overly technical and I think is rather misleading. My first thought upon hearing about an animal called "aerial", is that it is something like a bat, swallow or dragonfly that spends long periods high in open air foraging. Which is not the case here. "Bald-faced Yellowjacket" would be much better. Although "Bald-faced Hornet" is still a much more evocative name IMO.

"and is the accepted common name by the ESA."

Looking at the ESA common name database (https://www.entsoc.org/common-names?title=&field_scientific_name_value=&tid=&tid_1=&tid_2=Dolichovespula&tid_3=&tid_4=), I don't see where they provide common names for genera. They provide common names for two Dolichovespula species: this one is Bald-faced Hornet, and D. arenaria is Aerial Yellowjacket. What am I missing? The ESA website provides a formal process for changing common names. Have you considered submitting the name there? I will note that it probably does not meet some of the guidelines they indicate.

I agree with most of what you say in the first paragraph - I never indicated that aerial yellowjacket was an inaccurate name. Something can be both accurate and misleading. I would submit that, to the layperson, the word "hornet" brings to mind a large, robust wasp (accurate), whereas "aerial yellowjacket" brings to mind a yellow wasp that lives in the air (inaccurate).

"Upon checking other Dolichovespula species reveals that their common names also utilize ‘Aerial’. This includes other white species such as Dolichovespula arctica and D. albida."

Looking online, it appears to me that arctica is more commonly just called "Parasitic Yellowjacket", and albida "Arctic Yellowjacket". But they are usually just referred to by the latin name, which is exactly the point. These species are largely only discussed by specialists - meaning that specialists have the ability to determine common names.

"Accordingly, are we to be told by others what to call our taxa? No, I believe we should be dictating what they’re named."

This statement, specifically the "our taxa", is exactly where my problem is! These are not your taxa, and you have no right to be dictating anything. These are wild animals, and we humans, in trying to communicate with each other, have developed words for the animals we see. Those people are not wrong, and the names do not belong to you. They belong to every single person talking about these insects. In reality for some species, like D. arctica, this really is largely limited to a group of mostly specialists, and in those cases there is some sense in which you do own the names. But that is simply not the case for D. maculata. Similarly, there is some weak sense in which the ABA (via the consent of the birding community) own names like "Clapper Rail", "Nashville Warbler", or "Elegant Trogon". If there was a good reason, they could change these names, and the changes would stick. But the ABA and the birding community do not get a say in the names "Blue Jay", "Bald Eagle" or "Canada Goose". These names are used too broadly in too many contexts. It would neither be appropriate nor possible for the ABA to change the name of Bald Eagle.

To be very clear, I am not claiming that I, or anybody else, should get to tell you what to call D. maculata. You can call it what you want. I am claiming that, in cases where many people have to agree (like default names on iNat), we need to have a reasonably objective guideline as to what name should be used. I think that guideline should be based on common usage, and given the forum thread, that position seems to be overwhelmingly popular among the curator community and at least one of the iNat admins.

"Killing the name now prevents its further ‘growth’ and acceptance."

This is true, although I don't believe that "Bald-faced Aerial Yellowjacket" would ever gain acceptance just because it so awkward. In any case though, I, personally, don't want it to gain acceptance! I think the existing name is superior in almost every way, and regardless, the long period where this species would have two names will cause way way more problems than calling one species of Dolichovespula a hornet. You obviously disagree with me there, and that's not the point. The point is that everyone has opinions about these things, and we need some kind of overall standard to resolve disagreement.

This really doesn't seem like even an edge case to me. We have one name that is officially accepted by common name commitees of both the Entomological Society of America & Canada, is the only name used by Bugguide editors and users, is used overwhelmingly more often on Flickr, is used on Wikipedia and EoL, is the only name used in the scientific literature, is in broad use in pest control and so on. We have another name that is used by some portion of vespid specialists, and a few random people that have also picked it up. If you want to change people's minds, the place to start is by using the name personally in books and publications and recommending others do the same, and in trying the route of proposing changes to the committees. The place to start is not to just impose your views on everyone else.